Terminology

The term "Zionism" itself is derived from the word Zion (Hebrew: ציון, Tzi-yon‎), referring to Jerusalem. The first use of the term is attributed to the Austrian Nathan Birnbaum, founder of the first nationalist Jewish students' movement Kadimah, in his journal Selbstemanzipation (Self Emancipation) in 1890.[7]

Organization

Members and delegates at the 1939 Zionist congress, by country/region (Zionism was banned in the Soviet Union). 70,000 Polish Jews supported the Revisionist Zionism movement, which was not represented.[8]

Country/Region

Members

Delegates

Poland

299,165

109

USA

263,741

114

Palestine

167,562

134

Romania

60,013

28

United Kingdom

23,513

15

South Africa

22,343

14

Canada

15,220

8

The multi-national, worldwide Zionist movement is structured on representative democractic principles. Congresses are held every four years (they were held every two years before the Second World War) and delegates to the congress are elected by the membership. Members are required to pay dues known as a shekel. At the congress, delegates elect a 30-man executive council, which in turn elects the movement's leader. The movement was democratic from its inception and women had the right to vote (before they won the right in Great Britain).

The 28th Zionist Congress, meeting in Jerusalem 1968, adopted the five points of the "Jerusalem Program" as the aims of Zionism today. They are:[9]

The unity of the Jewish People and the centrality of Israel in Jewish life

The ingathering of the Jewish People in its historic homeland, Eretz Israel, through Aliyah from all countries

The strengthening of the State of Israel which is based on the prophetic vision of justice and peace

The preservation of the identity of the Jewish People through the fostering of Jewish and Hebrew education and of Jewish spiritual and cultural values

The protection of Jewish rights everywhere.

Since the creation of Israel, the role of the movement has declined and it is now a peripheral factor in Israeli politics although different perceptions of Zionism continue to play a role in Israeli and Jewish political discussion.

Labor Zionism

Labor Zionism originated in Eastern Europe. Socialist Zionists believed that centuries of being oppressed in antisemitic societies had reduced Jews to a meek, vulnerable, despairing existence which invited further antisemitism, a view originally stipulated by Theodor Herzl. They argued that a revolution of the Jewish soul and society was necessary and achievable in part by Jews moving to Israel and becoming farmers, workers, and soldiers in a country of their own. Most socialist Zionists rejected the observance of traditional religious Judaism as perpetuating a "Diaspora mentality" among the Jewish people, and established rural communes in Israel called "kibbutzim". Though socialist Zionism draws its inspiration and is philosophically founded on the fundamental values and spirituality of Judaism, its progressive expression of that Judaism has often fostered an antagonistic relationship with Orthodox Judaism.

Liberal Zionism

General Zionism (or Liberal Zionism) was initially the dominant trend within the Zionist movement from the First Zionist Congress in 1897 until after the First World War. General Zionists identified with the liberal European middle class (or bourgeoisie) to which many Zionist leaders such as Herzl and Chaim Weizmann aspired. Liberal Zionism, although not associated with any single party in modern Israel, remains a strong trend in Israeli politics advocating free market principles, democracy and adherence to human rights. Kadima, however, does identify with many of the fundamental policies of Liberal Zionist ideology, advocating among other things the need for Palestinian statehood in order to form a more democratic society in Israel, affirming the free market, and calling for equal rights for Arab citizens of Israel.

Nationalist Zionism

Nationalist Zionism originated from the Revisionist Zionists led by Jabotinsky. The Revisionists left the World Zionist Organization in 1935 because it refused to state that the creation of a Jewish state was an objective of Zionism. The revisionists advocated the formation of a Jewish Army in Palestine to force the Arab population to accept mass Jewish migration. Revisionist Zionism evolved into the Likud Party in Israel, which has dominated most governments since 1977. It advocates Israel maintaining control of the West-Bank and East Jerusalem and takes a hard-line approach in the Israeli-Arab conflict. In 2005 the Likud split over the issue of creation of a Palestinian state on the occupied territories and party members advocating peace talks helped form the Kadima party.

Religious Zionism

In the 1920s and 1930s Rabbi Abraham Isaac Kook (the first Chief Rabbi of Palestine) and his son Rabbi Zevi Judah Kook saw great religious and traditional value in many of Zionism's ideals, while rejecting its anti-religious undertones. They taught that Orthodox (Torah) Judaism embraces and mandates Zionism's positive ideals, such as the ingathering of exiles, and political activity to create and maintain a Jewish political entity in the Land of Israel. In this way, Zionism serves as a bridge between Orthodox and secular Jews.

While other Zionist groups have tended to moderate their nationalism over time, the gains from the Six-Day War have led religious Zionism to play a significant role in Israeli political life. Now associated with the National Religious Party and Gush Emunim, religious Zionists have been at the forefront of Jewish settlement in the West Bank and efforts to assert Jewish control over the Old City of Jerusalem.

Zionism and Haredi (ultra-Orthodox) Judaism

Haredi Orthodox organizations do not belong to the Zionist movement; they view Zionism as secular, reject nationalism as a doctrine and consider Judaism to be first and foremost a religion.

Some Haredi rabbis do not consider Israel to be a halachic Jewish state because it is secular. However, they generally consider themselves responsible for ensuring that Jews maintain religious ideals and since most Israeli citizens are Jews they pursue this agenda within Israel. Others reject any possibility of a Jewish state, since according to them a Jewish state is completely forbidden by Jewish law, and a Jewish state is considered an oxymoron.

Two Haredi parties run in Israeli elections. They are sometimes associated with views which could be regarded as nationalist or Zionist and have shown a preference for coalitions with more nationalist Zionist parties, probably because these are more interested in enhancing the Jewish nature of the Israeli state.

The Sephardi-Orthodox party Shas rejects association with the Zionist movement. However, its voters generally regard themselves as Zionist and Knesset members frequently pursue what others might consider a Zionist agenda. Shas has supported territorial compromise with the Arabs and Palestinians but generally opposes compromise over Jewish holy sites.

The Ashkenazi Agudat Israel/UTJ party has always avoided association with the Zionist movement and usually avoids voting on or discussing issues related to peace because its members do not serve in the army. The party does work towards ensuring that Israel and Israeli law are in tune with the halacha, on issues such as Shabbat rest.

Many other Hasidic groups, most famously the Satmar Hasidim as well as the larger movement they are part of in Jerusalem, the Edah HaChareidis, are strongly anti-Zionist. Other groups included in the Edah HaChareidis include Dushinsky, Toldos Aharon, Toldos Avrohom Yitzchok, Spinka, and others, numbering tens of thousands in Jerusalem, and hundreds of thousands worldwide.

Particularities of Zionist beliefs

Zionism was established on the basis of the association between the Jewish people and the Land of Israel. Aliyah (literally "Ascent", that is migration) to the Land of Israel is a recurring theme in Jewish prayers. Zionists consider the presence of Jews outside of Israel as living in exile.[10]Rejection of life in the Diaspora is a central assumption in Zionism,[11] underlying this attitude is the feeling that the Diaspora restricts the full growth of Jewish individual and national life.

Zionists generally preferred to speak Hebrew, a Semitic language that developed under conditions of freedom in ancient Judah, modernizing and adapting it for everyday use. Zionists sometimes refused to speak Yiddish, a language they considered affected by Christian persecution. Once they moved to Israel, many Zionists refused to speak their (diasporic) mother tongues and gave themselves new, Hebrew names.

The Jewish people have grown in the land of Israel, wherein their religious, spiritual and political identity reached the maturity, and in here they lived for the first time in a sovereign state, and in there they produced their human, national and cultural values.

When the Jewish people were forcefully dispersed out of their country, they kept their promise to return from the different countries of exile, and never stopped praying and believing in the hope of returning to their country and resuming their political freedom there.

Zionism is dedicated to fighting antisemitism. Some Zionists believe antisemitism will never disappear (and that Jews must conduct themselves with this in mind),[12] while others perceive Zionism as a vehicle with which to end antisemitism.

In the 19th century, a current in Judaism supporting a return to Palestine grew in popularity,[14] particularly in Europe, where anti-semitism and hostility towards Jews were also growing. Jews began to emigrate to Palestine, pre-Zionist Aliyah, even before 1897, the year considered as the start of practical Zionism.[15]

Jewish immigration to Palestine started in earnest in 1882. Most immigrants came from Russia, escaping the frequent pogroms and state-led persecution. They founded a number of agricultural settlements with financial support from Jewish philanthropists in Western Europe. Further Aliyahs followed the Russian Revolution and Nazi persecution.

In the 1890s, Theodor Herzl infused Zionism with a new ideology and practical urgency, leading to the First Zionist Congress at Basel in 1897, which created the World Zionist Organization (WZO).[16] Herzl's aim was to initiate necessary preparatory steps for the attainment of a Jewish state. Herzl’s attempts to reach a political agreement with the Ottoman rulers of Palestine were unsuccessful and other governmental support was sought. The WZO supported small-scale settlement in Palestine and focused on strengthening Jewish feeling and consciousness and on building a worldwide federation.

The Russian Empire, with its long record of state organized genocide and ethnic cleansing ("pogroms") was widely regarded as the historic enemy of the Jewish people. As much of its leadership were German speakers, the Zionist movement's headquarters were located in Berlin. At the start of World War I, most Jews (and Zionists) supported Germany in its war with Russia.

Lobbying by a Russian Jewish immigrant, Chaim Weizmann and fear that American Jews would encourage the USA to support Germany culminated in the Balfour Declaration of 1917 by the British government (the Zionist congress had decided already by 1903 to decline an offer by the British to establish a homeland in Uganda). This endorsed the creation of a Jewish Homeland in Palestine. In addition, a Zionist military corps led by Jabotinsky were recruited to fight on behalf of Britain in Palestine.

The Mandatory (…) will secure the establishment of the Jewish national home, as laid down in the preamble, and the development of self-governing institutions, and also for safeguarding the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race and religion.

Weizmann's role in obtaining the Balfour Declaration led to his election as the movement's leader. He remained in that role until 1948 and then became the first President of Israel.

Jewish migration to Palestine and widespread Jewish land purchases from feudal landlords led to landlessness and fueled unrest which was often led by the same landlords who sold the land. There were riots in 1920, 1921 and 1929, sometimes accompanied by massacres of Jews [18] The victims were usually from the non-Zionist Haredi Jewish communities in the Four Holy Cities. Britain supported Jewish immigration in principle, but in reaction to Arab violence imposed restrictions on Jewish immigration.

In 1933, Hitler came to power in Germany, and in 1935 the Nuremberg Laws made German Jews (and later Austrian and Czech Jews) stateless refugees. Similar rules were applied by the many Nazi allies in Europe. The subsequent growth in Jewish migration and impact of Nazi propaganda aimed at the Arab world led to the 1936–1939 Arab revolt in Palestine. Britain established the Peel Commission to investigate the situation. The commission did not consider the situation of Jews in Europe but called for a two-state solution and compulsory transfer of populations. But Britain rejected this solution and instead implemented White Paper of 1939. This planned to end Jewish immigration by 1944 and to allow no more than 75,000 further Jewish migrants. The British maintained this policy until the end of the Mandate.

Growth of the Jewish community in Palestine and devastation of European Jewish life sidelined the World Zionist Organization. The Jewish Agency for Palestine under the leadership of David Ben-Gurion increasingly dictated policy with support from American Zionists who provided funding and influence in Washington, D.C. including via the highly effective American Palestine Committee.

Since the creation of the State of Israel, the World Zionist Organization has functioned mainly as an organization dedicated to assisting and encouraging Jews to migrate to Israel. It has provided political support for Israel in other countries but plays little role in internal Israeli politics. The movement's major success since 1948 was in providing logistical support for migrating Jews and, most importantly, in assisting Soviet Jews in their struggle with the authorities over the right to leave the USSR and to practice their religion in freedom.

Haredi Jewish communities are non-Zionist but willing to participate in Israeli coalitions. A minority, (the Satmar Hasidim and the small Neturei Karta group) are strongly anti-Zionist.

Before Hitler, Jews seeking to assimilate in Europe feared that Zionism would undermine their claims to citizenship since antisemites claim that Jews are disloyal to their "host" societies.[26] These Jews sought to define themselves as loyal citizens of a different faith, sometimes styling themselves "of the Mosaic persuasion" . This movement was particularly prevalent in Germany, where most Jews supported German nationalism.[27]

Non-Zionist Israeli movements, such as the Canaanite movement led by poet Yonatan Ratosh in the 1930s and 1940s, have argued that "Israeli" should be a new pan-ethnic nationality. A related modern movement is known as post-Zionism, which asserts that Israel should abandon the concept of a "state of the Jewish people" and instead strive to be a state of all its citizens.[28] Another opinion favors a binational state in which Arabs and Jews live together while enjoying some type of autonomy.

During the last quarter of 20th century, classic nationalism in Israel declined. This led to the rise of two antagonistic movements: neo-Zionism and post-Zionism. Both movements mark the Israeli version of a worldwide phenomenon:

The Protocols of the Elders of Zion

In 1903, following the Kishinev Pogrom, a variety of Russian antisemities, including the Black Hundreds and the Tzarist Secret Police, began combining earlier works alleging a Jewish plot to take control of the world into new formats.[31] One particular version of these allegations, "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" (subtitle "Protocols extracted from the secret archives of the central chancery of Zion"), arranged by Sergei Nilus, achieved global notability. In 1903, the editor claimed that the protocols revealed the menace of Zionism:

....which has the goal of uniting all the Jews of the whole world in one union - a union that is more closely knit and more dangerous than the Jesuits.

The book contains fictional minutes of an imaginary meeting in which alleged Jewish leaders plotted to take over the world. Nilus later claimed they were presented to the elders by Herzl (the "Prince of Exile") at the first Zionist congress. A Polish edition claimed they were taken from Herzl's flat in Austria and a 1920 German version renamed them "The Zionist Protocols".[33] The "protocols were one of the earliest, and possibly the most important example of the many cases in which antisemitism has manifested asanti-Zionism or vice versa and were extensively used by the Nazis. They are widely distributed in the Arab world and are referred to in the 1988 Hamas charter (article 32):

The Zionist plan is limitless. After Palestine, the Zionists aspire to expand from the Nile to the Euphrates. When they will have digested the region they overtook, they will aspire to further expansion, and so on. Their plan is embodied in the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion"...

As the war in Iraq began and the South Africa's apartheid government and the Soviet Union collapsed, the resolution was repealed in 1991 with Resolution 4686, after Israel declared that it would only participate in the Madrid Conference of 1991 if the resolution were revoked.[34][36][37]

At the session revoking the motion, U.S. President George H. W. Bush declared that 3379 mocked the founding principles of the United Nations and its charter's pledge "to practice tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbors."[38] The revocation motion was co-sponsored by 90 nations and supported by 111, and opposed by 26.[34]

Equating anti-Zionism with antisemitism

There is evidence to suggest that anti-Zionism is sometimes antisemitism masquerading in a more sanitized term.[39] The word Zionist is sometimes used as a synonym for Jew and anti-Zionists may use motifs previously associated with antisemitism. On October 21, 1973, then-Soviet ambassador to the United NationsYakov Malik declared: "The Zionists have come forth with the theory of the Chosen People, an absurd ideology." Chosenness, a basic doctrine of Judaism, has no role in Zionism. Similarly, an exhibit about Zionism and Israel in the Museum of Religion and Atheism in Leningrad designates the following as Soviet Zionist material: Jewish prayer shawls, tefillin and PassoverHagaddahs,[40] even though these are all religious items used by Jews for thousands of years.[39]

Marcus Garvey and Black Zionism

Zionist success in winning British support for formation of a Jewish National Home in Palestine helped to inspire the Jamaican nationalist Marcus Garvey to form a movement dedicated to returning Americans of African origin to Africa. During a speech in Harlem in 1920, Garvey stated: "other races were engaged in seeing their cause through—the Jews through their Zionist movement and the Irish through their Irish movement—and I decided that, cost what it might, I would make this a favorable time to see the Negro's interest through."[41] Garvey established a shipping company, the Black Star Line, to allow Black Americans to emigrate to Africa, but for various reasons failed in his endeavour.

The French government through Minister M. Cambon formally committed itself to “the renaissance of the Jewish nationality in that Land from which the people of Israel were exiled so many centuries ago".

An international opinion survey has shown that India is the most pro-Israel country in the world.[46][47][48][49]. In more current times, all conservative Indian parties and organizations support Zionism.[45][50] This has invited attacks on Hindus by the Indian left opposed to Zionism, and allegations that Hindus are conspiring with the "Jewish Lobby"[51], as well as from Islamist in Pakistan (see Zaid Hamid), who accuse Indian Hindus of participating in a "global Hindu-Zionist" conspiracy.

Christians supporting Zionism

Christians have a long history of supporting the return of Jews to the Holy Land prior to Zionism. One of the principal Protestant teachers who promoted the biblical doctrine that the Jews would return to their national homeland was John Nelson Darby. He is credited with being the major promoter of the idea following his 11 lectures on the hopes of the church, the Jew and the gentile given in Geneva in 1840. His views were embraced by many evangelicals and also affected international foreign policy. Notable early supporters of Zionism include British Prime Ministers David Lloyd George and Arthur Balfour, American President Woodrow Wilson and Orde Wingate whose activities in support of Zionism led the British Army to ban him from ever serving in Palestine. According to Charles Merkley of Carleton University, Christian Zionism strengthened significantly after the Six-Day War of 1967, and many dispensationalist Christians, especially in the United States, now strongly support Zionism.

^ General Progress Report and Supplementary Report of the United Nations Conciliation Commission for Palestine, Covering the period from 11 December 1949 to 23 October 1950, GA A/1367/Rev.1 23 October 1950

^ El-Nawawy, Mohammed (2002). The Israeli-Egyptian Peace Process in the reporting of western Journalists. Ablex/Greenwood, pg. 19 ISBN 1567505449 "It is a barrier that has been created by years and years of antagonism with Israelis; a barrier that was strengthened by the Egyptian and Arab news media at large which have enforced the Arabs' stereotypes about the Israelis as invaders of Arab land."

^ Khalidi, Rashid (2006). The Iron Cage: The Story of the Palestinian Struggle for Statehood. Beacon Press, pg. 19.

From Wikiquote

Zionism is the belief that the
Jewish people should return to the Land of Israel.

Sourced

Zionism proceeds from the assumption that the Jews are still a
people or nation, many of whom cannot or will not assimilate
themselves to other peoples, and wish to retain their identity as a
national community.

Zionism is as old as the Babylonian Exile, which began in
586BCE. Separation from the Land of Israel as they were being led
into captivity by their conquerors rested crushingly upon the
spirits of the Jewish exiles; a longing for the homeland consumed
them. Turning in the direction of Judah, they then took an awesome
vow: "If I forget thee, O Jerusalem, let my right hand lose its
cunning. Let my tongue cleave to the roof of my mouth, if I
remember thee not; if I set not Jerusalem above my chiefest joy"
(Psalms 137:5-6).

Nathan Ausubel, The Book of Jewish Knowledge, art.
Zionism p.526

In principle, the Zionists lack any religion. They are lying
when they say that they are Jews.

Were I to sum up the Basel Congress in a word — which I shall
guard against pronouncing publicly — it would be this: At Basel, I
founded the Jewish State. If I said this out loud today, I would be
answered by universal laughter. Perhaps in five years, certainly in
fifty, everyone will know it.

Theodor
Herzl in a diary entry, (3 September 1897), a few days after
the First Zionist Congress in
Basel, Switzerland, as quoted in'Nonstate Nations in International
Politics: Comparative System Analyses (1997) by Judy S.
Bertelsen, p. 37

Anti-Zionists, last of all, exhibit a distaste for certain
words. It was Thomas
Hobbes who, anticipating semantics, pointed out that words are
counters, not coins; that the wise man looks through them to
reality. This counsel many anti-Zionists seem to have neglected.
They are especially disturbed by the two nouns nationalism and
commonwealth, and by the adjective political. And yet these terms
on examination are not at all upsetting.
Jewish nationalism means no more than recognition of the peoplehood
of Israel, and of the propriety of that people's being a
religio-cultural group in America, a nationality in Eastern Europe,
and in Palestine an actualized nation.
Nor is the word political more horrendous, even when it precedes
Zionism. For what does it signify? It refers either to methods for
realizing the Zionist objective or to the objective itself. If to
the former, it denotes the World Zionist Organization, the Jewish
Agency for Palestine, and their transactions with the Mandatory
Power and others on immigration into Palestine and related
problems. If this be political Zionism, what can be wrong with it?
Anyone wishing Jews to be free to enter Palestine knows that
governments must be dealt with and understandings negotiated. Or
are there some so naive as to approve of results but not of the
only means for attaining them?

The idea that Zionism is essentially racist is only consistent
with the view that all nationalism is a form of racism. In that
case all states that claimed to be based on nationalism would need
to be removed as well. Anti-Zionism, however tends to argue one or
some of the following ideas:
(a) Jews are not a nation
(b) Jews are only identifiable by attachment to Judaism as
religion
(c) there is only tenuous evidence linking Jews to Torah historical
accounts
(d) the Jews come from Eastern Europe, not the Middle East
(e) Jews are not a homogeneous group
(f) Jews have collaborated with oppressors (Imperialism, the
Nazis)
(g) Zionism inevitably means oppressing the Palestinians.
There are of course other views. These arguments all lead to an
uncomfortable position that whereas all other self-declared
nationalisms have validity, the Jews have no such claims. Yet in
different ways the arguments about Zionism can be easily adopted to
almost all other national situations. Yet no one asks ‘So exactly
how is it that you are Australian?’ This question is posed to Jews
a great deal. While there are honorable Anti-Zionist positions they
are few. On the whole Anti-Zionism is close to, or a mask for,
Anti-Semitism.

External
links

From LoveToKnow 1911

ZIONISM. One of the most interesting results of
the antiSemitic agitation (see Anti-SEMITIsm) has been a strong revival of the
national spirit among the Jews in
a political form. To this movement the name Zionism has been given.
In the same way that anti-Semitism differs from the Jew-hatred
of the early and middle ages, Zionism differs from
previous manifestations of the Jewish national spirit. It was
originally advocated as an expedient without Messianic impulses,
and its methods and proposals have remained almost harshly modern.
None the less it is the lineal heir of the attachment to Zion which led the Babylonian exiles under
Zerubbabel to rebuild the Temple, and which flamed up in the heroic
struggle of the Maccabees against Antiochus Epiphanes. Without
this national spirit it could, indeed, never have assumed its
present formidable proportions. The idea that it is a set-back of
Jewish history, in the sense that it is an unnatural galvanization
of hopes long since abandoned for a spiritual and cosmopolitan
conception of the mission of Israel, is a controversial fiction. The
consciousness of a spiritual mission exists side by side with the
national idea. The great bulk of the Jewish people have throughout
their history remained faithful to the dream of a restoration of their national life in
Judea. Its manifestations have suffered temporary modifications
under the influence of changing political conditions, and the
intensity with which it has been held by individual Jews has varied
according to their social circumstances, but in the main the idea
has been passionately clung to.

The contention of some modern rabbis that the national idea. is
Messianic, and hence that its realization should be left to the
Divine initiative (e.g. Chief Rabbi Adler, Jewish Chronicle, 25th
November 18 9 8), is based on a false analogy between the politics of the Jews and
those of other oppressed nationalities. As all Hebrew politics were
theocratic, the national hope was necessarily Messianic. It was not
on that account less practical or less disposed to express itself
in an active political form. The Messianic dreams of the Prophets,
which form the framework of the Jewish liturgy to this day, were essentially
politiconational. They contemplated the redemption of Israel, the
gathering of the people in Palestine, the restoration
of the Jewish state, the rebuilding of the Temple, and the
re-establishment of the Davidic throne in Jerusalem with a prince of the House of David. How little the dispersed
Jews regarded this essentially political programme as a mere religious ideal is shown
by their attitude towards the pseudo-Messiahs who endeavoured to
fulfil it. Bar Cochba (A.D. 117-138)
lived at a period when a Jewish national uprising might well have
been exclusively political, for the dissolution of the kingdom was 1 Christians
of the 4th century removed the name to the S.W. hill, and this
tradition has persisted until modern times, when archaeological and
topographical evidence has re-identified Sion with the E. hill.

scarcely half a century old, and Palestine still had a large
Jewish population. None the less Bar Cochba based his right to lead the Jewish revolt on
Messianic claims, and throughout the Roman Empire the Jews
responded with enthusiasm to his call. Three centuries later Moses of Crete attempted to repeat Bar Cochba's
experiment, with the same results. In the 8th century, when the
Jews of the West were sufficiently remote from the days of their
political independence to have developed an exclusively spiritual
conception of their national identity, the Messianic claims of a
Syrian Jew named Serene shook the whole of Jewry, and even among
the Jews of Spain there was no
hestitation as to whether they had a right to force the hands of Providence. It was the
same with another pseudo-Messiah named Abu-Isa Obadia, who unfurled the
national banner in Persia some
thirty
years later.

During the middle ages, though the racial character of the Jews
was being transformed by their Ghetto seclusion, the national yearning suffered
no relaxation. If it expressed itself exclusively in literature, it
was not on that account undergoing a process of idealization. (Cf.
Abrahams's Jewish Life in the Middle Ages, pp. 24-25.) The
truth is that it could not have expressed itself differently. There
could have been no abandonment of national hopes in a
practical sense, unless the prospect of entering the national life
of the peoples among whom they dwelt had presented itself as an
alternative. Of this there was not the remotest sign. The absence
of militant Zionism during this period is to be accounted for
partly by the want of conspicuous pseudo-Messiahs, and partly by
the terror of persecution. Unlike the modern Greeks, the medieval
Jews could expect no sympathy from their neighbours in an agitation
for the recovery of their country. One may imagine what the
Crusaders would have thought of an international Jewish conspiracy to recapture
Jerusalem. In the 15th century the aversion from political action,
even had it been possible, must have been strengthened by the fact
that the Grand Signor was the only friend the Jews had in the
world. The nationalist spirit of the medieval Jews is sufficiently
reflected in their liturgy, and especially in the works of the
poet, Jehuda Halevi. It is impossible to read his beautiful
Zionide without feeling that had he lived another twenty
years he would have gladly played towards the pseudo-Messiah David
Alroy (circa 1160) the part that Akiba played towards Bar
Cochba.

The strength of the nationalist feeling was practically tested
in the 16th century, when a Jewish impostor, David Reubeni
(circa 1530), and his disciple, Solomon Molcho (1501-1532), came
forward as would-be liberators of their people. Throughout Spain,
Italy and Turkey they were received with
enthusiasm by the bulk of their brethren. In the following century
the influence of the Christian Millenarians gave a fresh impulse to
the national idea. Owing to the frenzy of persecution and the
apocalyptic teachings of the Chiliasts, it now appeared in a more
mystical form, but a practical bias was not wanting. Menasseh
ben Israel (1604-1657) co-operated with English Millenarians to
procure the resettlement of the Jews in England as a preliminary to their national
return to Palestine, and he regarded his marriage with a scion of the Davidic family of
Abarbanel as justifying the hope that the new Messiah might be
found among his offspring. The increasing dispersion of the Marranos
or crypto-Jews of Spain and Portugal through the Inquisition, and the persecution of
the Jews in Poland, deepened
the Jewish sense of homelessness the while the Millenarians
encouraged their Zionist dreams. The Hebraic and Judeophil
tendencies of the Puritan revolution in England still further
stirred the prevailing unrest, and some Jewish rabbis are said to
have visited England in order to ascertain by genealogical
investigations whether a Davidic descent could be ascribed to Oliver
Cromwell. It only wanted a leader to produce a national
movement on a formidable scale. In 1666 this leader presented
himself at Smyrna, in the
person of a Jew named Sabbatai Zevi (1626-1676), who proclaimed
himself the Messiah. The news spread like wildfire, and despite the
opposition of some of the leading rabbis, the Jews everywhere
prepared for the journey to Palestine. Not alone was this the case
with the poor Jews of Lithuania and Germany, but also with well-to-do communities
like those of Venice, Leghorn and Avignon, and with the great Jewish merchants
and bankers of Hamburg, Amsterdam and London. Throughout Europe the nationalist excitement was intense.
Even the downfall and apostasy of Sabbatai were powerless to stop
it. Among the wealthier Jews it partially subsided, but the great
bulk of the people refused for a whole century to be
disillusionized. A Messianic frenzy seized upon them. Encouraged on
the one hand by Christian Millenarians like Pierre Jurien, Oliger
Pauli, and Johannes Speeth, pandered to by Sabbataic impostors like
Cardoso, Bonafoux, Mordecai of Eisenstadt, Jacob Querido, Judah
Chassid, Nehemiah Chayon
and Jacob Franks, and maddened
by fresh oppressions, they became fanaticized to the verge of demoralization.

The reaction arrived in 1778 in the shape of the Mendelssohnian
movement. The growth of religious toleration, the attempted emancipation of
the English Jews in 1753, and the sane Judeophilism of men like
Lessing and Dohm, showed that at length the dawn of the only possible alternative to
nationalism was at hand. Moses Mendelssohn (1729-1786) sought
to prepare his brethren for their new life as citizens of the lands
in which they dwelt, by emphasizing the spiritual side of Judaism
and the necessity of Occidental culture. His efforts were
successful. The narrow nationalist spirit everywhere yielded before
the hope or the progress of local political emancipation. In 1806
the Jewish Sanhedrin convened by Napoleon virtually repudiated
the nationalist tradition. The new Judaism, however, had not
entirely destroyed it. It had only reconstructed it on a wider and
more sober foundation. Mendelssohnian culture, by promoting the
study of Jewish history, gave a fresh impulse to the racial
consciousness of the Jews. The older nationalism had been founded
on traditions so remote as to be almost mythical; the new race
consciousness was fed by a glorious martyr history, which ran side by side with the
histories of the newly adopted nationalities of the Jews, and was
not unworthy of the companionship. From this race consciousness
came a fresh interest in the Holy Land. It was an ideal rather than
a politico-nationalist interest - a desire to preserve and cherish
the great monument of the departed national glories. It took the
practical form of projects for improving the circumstances of the
local Jews by means of schools, and for reviving something of the
old social condition of Judea by the establishment of agricultural
colonies. In this work Sir Moses Montefiore, the Rothschild family, and
the Alliance Israelite
Universelle were conspicuous. More or less passively, however, the
older nationalism still lived on - especially in lands where Jews
were persecuted - and it became strengthened by the revived race
consciousness and the new interest in the Holy Land. Christian
Millenarians also helped to keep it alive. Lord Ashley, afterwards
Lord Shaftesbury,
Colonel Gawler, Mr Walter
Cresson, the
United Statesconsul at Jerusalem, Mr James
Finn, the British consul, Mr Laurence Oliphant and many others
organized and supported schemes for the benefit of the Jews of the
Holy Land on avowedly Restoration grounds. Another vivifying
element was the reopening of the Eastern Question and the
championship of oppressed nationalities in the East by the Western
Powers. In England political writers were found to urge the
re-establishment of a Jewish state under British protection as a
means Of assuring the overland route to India (Hollingsworth, Jews in Palestine,
1852). Lord Palmerston
was not unaffected by this idea (Finn, Stirring Times,
vol. i. pp. 106-112), and both Lord Beaconsfield and Lord Salisbury supported Mr
Laurence Oliphant in his
negotiations with the Porte for a concession which was to pave the
way to an autonomous Jewish state in the Holy Land. In 1854 a
London Jew attempted to float a
company "for the purpose of enabling the descendants of Israel to
obtain and cultivate the Land of Promise" (Hebrew
Observer, 12th April). In 1876 the publication of George
Eliot's Daniel Deronda gave to the
Jewish nationalist spirit the strongest stimulus it had experienced
since the appearance of Sabbatai Zevi.

It was not, however, until the spread of anti-Semitic doctrines
through Europe made men doubt whether the Mendelssohnian
denationalization of Judaism possessed the elements of permanency
that the Jewish nationalist spirit reasserted itself in a practical
form. As long as the anti-Semites were merely polemical, the
nationalists were mute, but when
in Russia their agitation took
the form of massacres and spoliation, followed by legislation of
medieval harshness, the nationalist remedy offered itself. In 1882
several pamphlets were
published by Jews in Russia, advocating the restoration of the
Jewish state. They found a powerful echo in the United States, where a young Jewish
poetess, Miss Emma
Lazarus, passionately championed the Zionist cause in verse not
unworthy. of Jehuda Halevi. But the movement did not limit itself
to literature. A society, "Chovevi Zion," was formed with the
object of so extending and methodizing the establishment of
agricultural colonies in Palestine as to make the eventual
acquisition of the country by the Jews possible. From the beginning
it was a great success, and branches, or "tents" as they were
called, were established all over the world. At the same time two
other great schemes for rescuing the Jewish people from oppression
were brought before the public. Neither was Zionist, but both
served to encourage the Zionist cause. One was due to the
initiative of Mr Cazalet, a financier who was interested in the Euphrates Valley, Railway project. With the
assistance of Mr Laurence Oliphant he proposed that the concession
from the Porte should include a band of territory two miles wide on
each side of the railway, on which Jewish refugees from Russia
should be settled. Unfortunately the scheme failed. The other was
Baron de Hirsch's colossal colonization association (see Hirsch,
Maurice De). This was neither political nor Zionist, but it was
supported by a good many members of the "Chovevi Zion," among them
Colonel Goldsmid, on the
ground that it might result in the training of a large class of
Jewish yeomen who would be invaluable in the ultimate settlement of
Palestine. (Interview in Daily Graphic, 10th March 1892.)
None of these projects, however, proved sufficiently inspiring to
attract the great mass of Jewish nationalists. The Chovevi Zion was
too timid and prosaic; the Hirsch scheme did npt directly appeal to
their strongest sympathies. In 1897 a striking change manifested
itself. A new Zionist leader arose in the person of a Viennese
journalist and playwright, Dr Theodore Herzl (1860-1904). The electoral
successes of the anti-Semites in Vienna and Lower Austria in 1895 had impressed him
with the belief that the Jews were unassimilable in Europe, and
that the time was not far distant when they would be once more
submitted to civil and political disabilities. The Hirsch scheme
did not, in his view, provide a remedy, as it only transplanted the
Jews from one uncongenial environment to another. He came to the
conclusion that the only solution of the problem was the
segregation of the Jews under autonomous political conditions. His
first scheme was not essentially Zionist. He merely called for a
new exodus, and was ready to accept any grant of land in any part
of the world that would secure to the Jews some form of
self-government. The idea was not new. In 1566 DonJoseph Nasi had proposed an autonomous
settlement of Jews at Tiberias, and had obtained a grant of the city
from the Sultan for the
purpose. In 1652 the Dutch West India
Company in Curacao, in
1654 Oliver Cromwell in Surinam, and in 1659 the French
West India Company at Cayenne had attempted similar experiments.
Marshal de Saxe in 1749 had projected the establishment of a Jewish
kingdom in South
America, of which he should be sovereign; and in 1825 Major M.
M. Noah purchased Grand Island, in the
river Niagara, with a view
to founding upon it a Jewish state. All these projects were
failures. Dr Herzl was not slow to perceive that without an impulse
of real enthusiasm his scheme would share the fate of these
predecessors. He accordingly resolved to identify it with the
nationalist idea. His plan was set forth in a pamphlet, entitled
The Jewish State, which was published in German, French
and English in the spring of 1896. It explained in detail how the
new exodus was to be organized and how the state was to be managed.
It was to be a tribute-paying state under the suzerainty of the Sultan.
It was to be settled by a chartered company and governed by an
aristocratic republic, tolerant of all religious differences. The
Holy Places were to be exterritorialized. The pamphlet produced a
profound sensation. Dr Herzl was joined by a number of
distinguished Jewish literary men, among whom were Dr Max Nordau
and Mr Israel
Zangwill, and promises of support and sympathy reached him from
all parts of the world. The haute finance and the higher rabbinate, however,
stood aloof.

The most encouraging feature in Dr Herzl's scheme was that the
Sultan of Turkey appeared favourable to it. The motive of his
sympathy has not hitherto been made known. The Armenian massacres
had inflamed the whole of Europe against him, and for a time the Ottoman Empire was in very
serious peril. Dr Herzl's scheme provided him, as he imagined, with
a means of securing powerful friends. Through a secret emissary,
the Chevalier de Newlinsky, whom he sent to London in May 1896, he
offered to present the Jews a charter in Palestine provided they
used their influence in the press and otherwise to solve the
Armenian question on lines which he laid down. The English Jews
declined these proposals, and refused to treat in any way with the
persecutor of the Armenians. When, in the following July, Dr Herzl
himself came to London, the Maccabaean Society, though ignorant of
the negotiations with the Sultan, declined to support the scheme.
None the less, it secured a large amount of popular support
throughout Europe, and in 1910 Zionism had a following of over
300,000 Jews, divided into a thousand electoral districts. The
English membership is about 15,000.

Between 1897 and 1910 the Zionist organization held nine
international Congresses. At the first, which met at Basel, a political programme was
adopted on the following terms: "Zionism aims at establishing for
the Jewish people a publicly and legally assured home in Palestine.
For the attainment of this purpose the Congress considers the
following means serviceable:

(1) The promotion of the settlement of Jewish agriculturists,
artisans and tradesmen in Palestine.

(2) The federation of all Jews into local or general groups,
according to the laws of the various countries.

(3) The strengthening of the Jewish feeling and
consciousness.

(4) Preparatory steps for the attainment of those governmental
grants which are necessary to the achievement of the Zionist
purpose."

Subsequent congresses founded various institutions for the
promotion of this programme, notably a People's Bank known as the Colonial Trust, which is the financial
instrument of political Zionism, a National Fund for the purchase
of land in Palestine and a Palestine Commission with subsidiary
societies for the study and improvement of the social and economic
condition of the Jews in the Holy Land. For the purposes of these
bodies about 400,000 was collected in small sums and invested. Very
little practical work of any abiding value, however, was
accomplished, and on the political side the career of Zionism had
up to the end of 1910 proved a failure.

In May 1901 and August 1902 Dr Herzl had audiences of the Sultan
Abdul Hamid, and was received with great distinction, but the
negotiations led to nothing. Despairing of obtaining an immediate
charter for Palestine, he turned to the British government with a
view to securing a grant of territory on an autonomous basis in the
vicinity of the Holy Land, which would provisionally afford a
refuge and a political training-ground for persecuted Jews. His
overtures met with a sympathetic reception, especially from Mr Chamberlain, then
Colonial Secretary, and Earl Percy, who was Under-Secretary for
Foreign Affairs (October 1902). At first a site for the proposed
settlement was suggested in the Sinai peninsula, but owing to the waterless
character of the country the project had to be abandoned. Then Mr
Chamberlain, who in the interval had paid a visit to Africa, suggested the salubrious
and uninhabited highlands of the East Africa Protectorate, and in
1903 the British government formally offered Dr Herzl the Nasin
Gishiu plateau, 6000 sq. m. in area. No such opportunity for
creating a Jewish self-governing community had presented itself
since the Dispersion, and for a moment it seemed as if Zionism were
really entering the field of practical politics. Unhappily it only
led to bitter controversies, which nearly wrecked the whole
movement. The British offer was submitted to the Sixth Congress,
which assembled at Basel in August 1903. It was received with
consternation and an explosion of wrath by the ultra-nationalist
elements, who interpreted it as an abandonment of the Palestine
idea. By his personal influence Dr Herzl succeeded in obtaining the
appointment of a commission to examine the proposed territory, but
its composition was largely nationalist, and in the following year
the Congress gladly availed itself of certain critical passages in
the report to reject the whole scheme.

Meanwhile Zionism had suffered an irreparable blow by the death
of Dr Herzl (1904). He was succeeded by Mr David Wolffsohn, a
banker of Cologne, but there
was in truth nobody who in ability and personal dignity and magnetism could take his
place. The movement was further shaken by the dissensions which
followed the rejection of the East African project. Mr Israel
Zangwill led an influential minority which combined with certain
non-Zionist elements to found a rival organization under the name
of the JTO (Jewish Territorial Organization) with a view to taking
over the East African offer or to establish an autonomous place of
refuge elsewhere. Thus freed from all moderating elements, the
Zionists hardened into an exclusively Palestinian body, and under
the auspices of Mr Wolffsohn fresh negotiations were opened with
the Porte. These, however, were rendered finally hopeless by the
Turkish revolution, which postulated a united Ottoman nationality, and
resolutely set its face against any extension of the racial and
religious autonomies under which the integrity of the Empire had
already severely suffered.

During 1905-1910, the Jewish national idea, for all practical
purposes, was in a state of suspended animation. The recovery of
the Holy Land appeared more distant than ever, while even the
establishment of an independent or autonomous Jewish state
elsewhere, for which the JTO was labouring, had encountered
unexpected difficulties. On the rejection of the British offer by
the Zionists Mr Zangwill approached the Colonial Office, but he was too late,
as the reserve on the Nasin Gishiu plateau had already been
officially withdrawn. The JTO then turned its attention to Cyrenaica, and an
expedition to examine the country was sent out (1908), but it was
not found suitable. A project for combining all the Jewish
organizations in an effort to secure an adequate foothold in Mesopotamia in
connexion with the scheme for the irrigation of that region was subsequently
proposed by Mr Zangwill, but up to January 1911 it had not been
found practicable. The JTO, however, did valuable work by
organizing an Emigration Regulation Department for
deflecting the stream of Jewish emigration from the overcrowded
Jewry of New York to the
Southern states of the American Union, where there is greater scope
for employment under wholesome conditions. For this purpose a fund
was formed, to which Mr Jacob Schiff contributed £100,000 and
Messrs Rothschild £ 20,000.

Although the Zionist organization was numerically strong -
indeed, the strongest popular movement Jewish history had ever
known - its experience from 1897 to 1910 rendered it very doubtful
whether its nationalist aspirations could, humanly speaking, ever
be fulfilled. From Turkey, either absolutist or democratic, it
appeared hopeless to expect any willing relaxation of the Ottoman
hold on Palestine, while in the event of a dissolution of the
Empire it was questionable whether Christendom - and especially the
Roman and Greek Churches - would permit the Holy Land to pass to
the Jews, even though the Holy Places were exterritorialized.
Should these obstacles be overcome, still more formidable
difficulties would await the Jewish state. The chief of these is
the religious question. The state would have to be orthodox or
secular. If it were orthodox it would desire to revive the whole
Levitical polity, and in these circumstances it would either pass
away through internal chaos or
would so offend the modern political spirit that it would be soon
extinguished from outside. If it were secular it would not be a
Jewish state. The great bulk of its supporters would refuse to live
in it, and it would ultimately be abandoned to an outlander
population consisting of Hebrew Christians and Christian
Millenarians.

Modern Zionism is vitiated by its erroneous premises. It is
based on the idea that antisemitism is unconquerable, and thus the
whole movement is artificial. Under the influence of religious
toleration and the naturalization laws, nationalities are
daily losing more of their racial character. The coming nationality
will be essentially a matter of education and economics, and this
will not exclude the Jews as such. With the passing away of
antisemitism, Jewish nationalism will disappear. If the Jewish
people disappear with it, it will only be because either their
religious mission in the world has been accomplished or they have
proved themselves unworthy of it.

LITERATURE.

A Zionist bibliography has been published by the Federation of
American Zionists.

Besides the works already cited in the body of this article,
see on the early nationalist movement Graetz, Geschichte der
Juden, under the heads of the various pseudo-Messiahs and
their adherents.

Jewish agricultural colonies will be found discussed very fully
in The Jewish Encyclopedia, vol. i. pp. 240-262.

For early Zionist projects see Publications of the American
Jewish Historical Society, No. 8, pp. 75-118; Laurence
Oliphant, Land of Gilead; Mrs Oliphant, Life of Laurence
Oliphant, pp. 168 et seq.

The Zionist movement since 1895 is fully recorded in its
official organ, Die Welt (Vienna).

For proceedings of the Congresses see the Official
Protocols published for each year by the society "Erez Israel"
of Vienna; also Herzl, Der Baseler Congress (Vienna,
1897).

From BibleWiki

Movement looking toward the segregation of the Jewish people
upon a national basis and in a particular home of its own;
specifically, the modern form of the movement that seeks for the
Jews "a publicly and legally assured home in Palestine," as initiated by Theodor Herzl in
1896, and since then dominating Jewish history. It seems that the
designation, to distinguish the movement from the activity of the
Chovevei Zion, was first used by
Matthias Acher (Birnbaum) in his paper "Selbstemancipation," 1886
(see "Ost und West," 1902, p. 576; Aḥad ha-'Am, "'Al Parashat
Derakim," p. 93, Berlin, 1903).

Contents

Biblical Basis.

The idea of a return of the Jews to Palestine has its roots in many passages of
Holy Writ. It is an integral part of the doctrine that deals with the Messianic time,
as is seen in the constantly recurring expression, "shub shebut" or
"heshib shebut," used both of Israel and of Judah (Jer30:7, 1; Ezek39:25; Lam. ii. 14; Hos6:11; Joel iv. 1 et
al.). The Dispersion was deemed merely temporal: "The days
come . . . that . . . I will bring again the captivity of my people
of Israel, and they shall
build the waste cities and inhabit them; and they shall plant vineyards, and drink the wine thereof . . . and I will plant them upon
their land, and they shall no more be pulled up out of their land"
(Amos9:14; comp. Zeph3:20); and "I will bring
them again also out of the land of Egypt, and gather them out of Assyria; and I will bring them into the land of
Gilead and Lebanon" (Zech10:10; comp. Isa11:11). In like strain the
Psalmist sings, "O that the salvation of Israel were come out of Zion! When the Lord bringeth back the captivity of his
people, Jacob shall rejoice, and
Israel shall be glad" (Ps147;
comp. cvii. 2, 3). According to Isaiah (ii. 1-4) and Micah (iv. 1-4), Jerusalem was to be a
religious center from which the Law and the word of the Law were to
go forth. In a dogmatic form this doctrine is more precisely stated in Deut30:1-5.

Relation to Messianism.

The belief that the Messiah will collect the scattered hosts (
(missing hebrew text) ) is often expressed in Talmudic and
midrashic writings; even though more universalistic tendencies made
themselves felt, especially in parts of the Apocryphal literature
(see Jew. Encyc. viii. 507, s.v.Messiah). Among Jewish philosophers the theory
held that the Messiah b. Joseph "will gather the children of Israel around him, march
to Jerusalem, and there,
after overcoming the hostile powers, reestablish the Temple-worship and set up his own dominion"
(ib. p. 511b). This has remained the doctrine of Orthodox Judaism; as Friedländer expresses it in his
"Jewish Religion" (p. 161): "There are some theologians who assume
the Messianic period to be the most perfect state of civilization,
but do not believe in the restoration of the kingdom of David, the rebuilding of the Temple, or the repossession of Palestine by the Jews. They
altogether reject the national hope of the Jews. These theologians
either misinterpret or wholly ignore the teachings of the Bible and
the divine promises made through the men of God."

The Reform wing of the Synagogue, however, rejects this doctrine; and the Conference
of Rabbis that sat in Frankfort-on-the-Main July 15-28, 1845,
decided to eliminate from the ritual "the prayers for the return to
the land of our forefathers and for the restoration of the Jewish
state." The Philadelphia Conference, Nov. 3-6, 1869,
adopted as the first section of its statement of principles the
following: "The Messianic aim of Israel is not the restoration of the old Jewish
state under a descendant of David, involving a second separation from the
nations of the earth, but the union of all the children of God in the confession of the unity of God, so as to realize the unity of all rational
creatures, and their call to moral sanctification." This was
re-affirmed at the Pittsburg Conference, Nov. 16-18, 1885, in the
following words: "We consider ourselves no longer a nation, but a
religious community; and we therefore expect neither a return to Palestine, nor a
sacrificial worship under
the sons of Aaron, nor the
restoration of any of the laws concerning a Jewish state."

In Talmudic Times.

Historically, the hope of a restoration, of a renewed national
existence, and of a return to Palestine has existed among the Jewish people
from olden times. After the first Exile, the Jews in Babylonia looked forward continually to the
reestablishment of their ancient kingdom. However much the Jews
spread from land to land, and however wide the dispersion and
consequent Diaspora
became, this hope continued to burn brightly; and from time to time
attempts were made to realize it. The destruction of the Temple by Titus and Vespasian (70 C.E.) was perhaps the most
powerful factor in driving the Jews east, south, and west.
Nevertheless, in a short time the hope of a restoration was kindled
anew. The risings under Akiba and Bar Kokba (118) soon followed;
and the Jews drenched the soil of Palestine with their blood in the vain attempt to regain their
national freedom against the heavy hand of the Roman power. Despite these
checks, the idea of the restoration persisted and became a matter
of dogmatic belief; as such it finds expression in Jewish
literature, both prose and poetic. The Talmudic writings as a
whole, while making suitable provision for the actual circumstances
under which the Jews lived, are based upon the idea that at some
time the ancient order of things will be reestablished, and the old
laws and customs come again into vogue. These hopes found
expression in numerous prayers which from time to time were
inserted in the ritual. Various calculations were made as to when
this time would arrive, e.g., in the eighth century
("Revelations of R. Simeon b.
Yoḥai") and in the eleventh century (Apoc. Zerubbabel; see Zunz, "Erlösungsjahre," in
"G. S." iii. 224; Poznanski in "Monatsschrift," 1901). The idea was
given a philosophic basis by those who treated of Jewish theology.
And the singers, both of the Synagogue and the home, were fervid in their
lament for the glory that was past and in their hopes for the
dignity that was to come (see Zionides).